Sam Harris takes a flying leap over the is/ought gap.

[Xunzian]

If one adopts a Hegelian view of History, which Harris and many of the other New Atheists do, then the process of ‘oughts’ becoming ‘ises’ is how change occurs. Whether or not that is necessarily desirable or whether the Hegelian view of history it the correct one (I do not think it is) are separate questions that what the is/ought fallacy seeks to address. That is all I am saying. You gotta identify the right error before you can go about fixing it.

[Wonderer]

@Xunzian

If one adopts a Hegelian view of History, which Harris and many of the other New Atheists do, then the process of ‘oughts’ becoming ‘ises’ is how change occurs. Whether or not that is necessarily desirable or whether the Hegelian view of history it the correct one (I do not think it is) are separate questions that what the is/ought fallacy seeks to address. That is all I am saying. You gotta identify the right error before you can go about fixing it.

I agree with that one hundred and ten percent, as i have tried to make clear, but that doesn’t give reason to make morality a tool of change.

How would the old schoolers sleep at night?

[Xunzian]

Sure. But, again, how morality figures into the system is really dependent on how one views the system. For Harris, it is all about the dialectic between “Faith” and “Reason”. Within that dialectic, “faith” leads to amorality whereas “reason” leads to morality. That ties into his whole Neo-Con ideology.

I’m not trying to justify Harris’ beliefs, I think they are trash. I’m just sayin’, if people are going to criticize him, they should criticize him in a way that makes sense.

[Wonderer]

@Xunzian

Sure. But, again, how morality figures into the system is really dependent on how one views the system. For Harris, it is all about the dialectic between “Faith” and “Reason”. Within that dialectic, “faith” leads to amorality whereas “reason” leads to morality. That ties into his whole Neo-Con ideology.

some would view the system and say that faith based morality is not amoral.

Are you saying that we’re arguing semantics?

I Have already said (in a few more words) that i feel Sam Harris made an attempt to set his own subjective standard of utilitarianism as a basis of judging morality, i.e: right and wrong…

I refer you to the quote in my signature

@Xunzian

I’m not trying to justify Harris’ beliefs, I think they are trash. I’m just sayin’, if people are going to criticize him, they should criticize him in a way that makes sense.

Damn… i really thought i had it this time…

[Xunzian]

Oh no, I’m agreeing with you. And I do think he has created this whole alternative utilitarianism. But what does that have to do with the is/ought gap? Maybe I am not understanding you.

[Wonderer]

@Xunzian

Oh no, I’m agreeing with you. And I do think he has created this whole alternative utilitarianism. But what does that have to do with the is/ought gap? Maybe I am not understanding you.

Well i guess my whole objection centers around Morality being barely coherent in an “is” form, and not being coherent at all in an ought form.

is/ought was never involved i think…

Sam harris imagined an ought and sought to make it an is, at least from my perspective…

I didn;t see sam harris touch on the current “is” other than “most people want to be happy”